RUCHI JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18772/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01097856202601 July 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Suman Kandoi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 182 taxmann.com 789 (Punjab & Haryana). Consequently, the Court allowed the petition in the same terms as the Suman Kandoi case. The impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the assessment order dated 19.01.2026, the notice of demand dated 19.01.2026, and the penalty order dated 19.01.2026 issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent, the High Court will follow it to grant relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ruchi Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order dated 27.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also challenged were an assessment order dated 19.01.2026, a notice of demand dated 19.01.2026, and a penalty order dated 19.01.2026 issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana, and others. The parties agreed that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders, including the order passed under Section 148A(d), the assessment order, the notice of demand, and the penalty order, are liable to be set aside in light of the Division Bench judgment in Suman Kandoi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 182 taxmann.com 789 (Punjab & Haryana)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue before the Court was squarely covered in her favour by the Division Bench judgment of Suman Kandoi (supra). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue, but their learned counsel was present. Revenue's contention: The revenue's learned counsel was present, and the parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the issue was covered by the aforementioned precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 274,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.108 CWP-18772-2026 Date of decision: 01.07.2026 Ruchi Jain ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Satyam Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (through VC) for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue raised before this Court through the instant petition is squarely covered in the petitioner's favour by a Division Bench judgment of this Court - Suman Kandoi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 182 taxmann.com 789 (Punjab & Haryana). 2. In the light of the above consensus, this petition is allowed in the same terms as Suman Kandoi's case (supra) resulting in the setting aside of the impugned order dated 27.07.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short – the Act), assessment order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-13), notice of demand dated 19.01.2026 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.07.02 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-18772-2026 -2- (Annexure P-14) and penalty order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-15) issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE July 01, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.07.02 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →